National Fire Protection Association Report
1 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 24-2020 [ Global Input ]
Do not Move the Contractor’s Material and Test Certificate for Underground Piping to the Annex as
proposed. Retain it in the body of the standard.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
I absolutely agree with the negative ballot statement by Mr. Richardson.
Further concerning the Committee Statement/Substantiation, if the form needs to be updated and/or reconfigured,
whether the figure is moved to the Annex, or retained in the body, the TC needs to take steps to update it at any
rate. A task group should be assigned to orchestrate the necessary revisions.
Related Item
• FR-29
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Larry Keeping
Organization:
PLC Fire Safety Solutions
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Tue Apr 28 15:27:04 EDT 2020
Committee:
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-10-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
A Contractors material certificate is considered the birth certificate of the system and should be
retained by the owner for the life of the system. Standard forms provide a level of assurance that
the required tests are performed and documented.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
2 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 11-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 2.3 ]
2.3 Other Publications.
2.3.1 ASME Publications.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
ASME B1.20.1, Pipe Threads, General Purpose (Inch), 2013.
ASME B16.1, Gray Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, Classes 25, 125, and 250, 2015.
ASME B16.3, Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings, Classes 150 and 300, 2016.
ASME B16.4, Gray Iron Threaded Fittings, Classes 125 and 250, 2016.
ASME B16.15, Cast Copper Alloy Threaded Fittings, Classes 125 and 250, 2018.
ASME B16.18, Cast Copper Alloy Solder Joint Pressure Fittings, 2018.
ASME B16.22, Wrought Copper and Copper Alloy Solder Joint Pressure Fittings, 2018.
2.3.2 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM A53/A53M, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and
Seamless, 2018.
ASTM A135/A135M, Standard Specification for Electric-Resistance-Welded Steel Pipe, 2009, reapproved
2014.
ASTM A312/312M, Standard Specification for Seamless, Welded, and Heavily Cold Worked Austenitic
Stainless Steel Pipes, 2017.
ASTM A403/A403M, Specification for Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe Fittings, 2018a.
ASTM A795/A795M, Standard Specification for Black and Hot-Dipped Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Welded
and Seamless Steel Pipe for Fire Protection Use, 2013.
ASTM B43, Specification for Seamless Red Brass Pipe, Standard Sizes, 2015.
ASTM B75/B75M, Specification for Seamless Copper Tube, 2011.
ASTM B88, Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube, 2018.
ASTM B251/B251M, Requirements for Wrought Seamless Copper and Copper-Alloy Tube, 2017.
ASTM SI10, IEEE/ASTM SI 10 American National Standard for Metric Practice, 2016.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
3 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
2.3.3 AWWA Publications.
American Water Works Association, 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235.
AWWA C104/A21.4, Cement-Mortar Lining for Ductile-Iron Pipe and Fittings, 2016.
AWWA C105/A21.5, Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile-Iron Pipe Systems, 2010.
AWWA C110/A21.10, Ductile-Iron and Gray-Iron Fittings, 2012.
AWWA C111/A21.11, Rubber-Gasket Joints for Ductile-Iron Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 2017.
AWWA C115/A21.15, Flanged Ductile-Iron Pipe with Ductile-Iron or Gray-Iron Threaded Flanges, 2011.
AWWA C150/A21.50, Thickness Design of Ductile-Iron Pipe, 2014.
AWWA C151/A21.51, Ductile-Iron Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, 2017, errata 2018.
AWWA C153/A21.53, Ductile-Iron Compact Fittings, 2011.
AWWA C300, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, 2016.
AWWA C301, Prestressed Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, 2014.
AWWA C302, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Noncylinder Type, 2016.
AWWA C303, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Bar-Wrapped, Steel-Cylinder Type, 2017.
AWWA C600, Installation of Ductile Iron Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2017.
AWWA C602, Cement-Mortar Lining of Water Pipe Lines in Place, 4 in. (100 mm) and Larger, 2017.
AWWA C900, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fabricated Fittings, 4 in. Through 60 in.
(100 mm Through 1,500 mm), 2016.
AWWA C906, Polyethylene (PE) Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 4 in. (100 mm) Through 63 in. (1650 mm) for
Waterworks, 2015.
AWWA C909, Molecularly Oriented Polyvinyl Chloride (PVCO) Pressure Pipe, 4 in. (100 mm) and Larger,
2016.
AWWA M9, Concrete Pressure Piping, 2008, errata 2013.
AWWA M23, PVC Pipe — Design and Installation, 2002.
AWWA M55, PE Pipe — Design and Installation, 2006.
2.3.4 Other Publications.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.
Additional Proposed Changes
File Name
24_CCN_3_and_4.pdf
Description Approved
24_CCN_3 & 4
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 3 and CC Note No. 4 in the First Draft Report on First
Revision No. 4.
Provide Committee Statement.
Related Item
• CCN-3, CCN-4, FR-4
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: CC on AUT-AAC
Organization:
NFPA
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
4 of 25
Submittal Date:
Mon May 04 15:36:04 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Committee Statement
Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-8-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
Updated referenced publications.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
1 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Correlating Committee Note No. 3-NFPA 24-2019 [ Section No. 2.3 ]
Submitter Information Verification
Committee:
AUT-AAC
Submittal Date: Mon Dec 16 13:52:54 EST 2019
Committee Statement
Committee Statement: Provide committee statement
First Revision No. 4-NFPA 24-2019 [Section No. 2.3]
Ballot Results
This item has passed ballot
22 Eligible Voters
3 Not Returned
19 Affirmative All
0 Affirmative with Comments
0 Negative with Comments
0 Abstention
Not Returned
Bellamy, Tracey D.
Hilton, Luke
Su, Joseph
Affirmative All
Bell, Kerry M.
Browning, Chase A.
Dellasanta, Steven W.
Friedman, Michael J.
Hoffman, Alex
Hopkins, Mark
Javeri, Sultan M.
Ketner, Charles W.
Koffel, William E.
Lake, James D.
LeBlanc, John A.
Linder, Kenneth W.
Lowrey, David O.
Medovich, Jack A.
Palenske, Garner A.
Phillips, Lawrence Richard
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
2 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Pirro, Donato A.
Seghi, Adam
Thompson, J. Michael
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
3 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Correlating Committee Note No. 4-NFPA 24-2019 [ Section No. 2.3 ]
Submitter Information Verification
Committee:
AUT-AAC
Submittal Date: Mon Dec 16 14:48:16 EST 2019
Committee Statement
Committee Statement: Provide a committee statement.
First Revision No. 4-NFPA 24-2019 [Section No. 2.3]
Ballot Results
This item has passed ballot
22 Eligible Voters
3 Not Returned
19 Affirmative All
0 Affirmative with Comments
0 Negative with Comments
0 Abstention
Not Returned
Bellamy, Tracey D.
Hilton, Luke
Su, Joseph
Affirmative All
Bell, Kerry M.
Browning, Chase A.
Dellasanta, Steven W.
Friedman, Michael J.
Hoffman, Alex
Hopkins, Mark
Javeri, Sultan M.
Ketner, Charles W.
Koffel, William E.
Lake, James D.
LeBlanc, John A.
Linder, Kenneth W.
Lowrey, David O.
Medovich, Jack A.
Palenske, Garner A.
Phillips, Lawrence Richard
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
4 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Pirro, Donato A.
Seghi, Adam
Thompson, J. Michael
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
5 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 5.2 ]
5.2 Size of Fire Mains.
5.2.1 Private Fire Service Mains.
5.2.1.1
Hydraulic calculations shall show that the main is able to supply the total demand flow rate at the required
design pressure.
5.2.1.2
For mains that supply fire hydrants, pipe size shall not be less than 6 in. (150 mm) nominal size.
5.2.2 Mains Not Supplying Hydrants.
For mains that do not supply hydrants, pipe sizes less than 6 in. (150 mm) nominal size shall be permitted
to be used subject to the following restrictions:
(1) The main shall supply only the following types of systems:
(2) Automatic sprinkler systems
(3) Open sprinkler systems
(4) Water spray fixed systems
(5) Foam systems
(6) Standpipe systems
(7) Hydraulic calculations shall show that the main is able to supply the total demand flow rate at the
required design pressure.
(8) Systems that are not hydraulically calculated shall have a main at least as large as the riser.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
Editorial. The “demand” for a water-based fire protection systems is generally considered to be the required flow
rate at the corresponding pressure.
Related Item
• FR-6
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Larry Keeping
Organization:
PLC Fire Safety Solutions
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Tue Apr 28 15:23:12 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee Action: Accepted
Resolution:
SR-1-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
The term "flow rate" is more descriptive than "demand."
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
6 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 5.8.1 ]
5.8.1*
When water supply connections are taken from penstocks, rivers, lakes, or reservoirs, measures shall be
taken to prevent freezing at the water supply inlet .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
The way this is currently written, if you connected to a river you might have to prevent the river from freezing. This
proposed language should address the concern.
Related Item
• FR #7
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Peter Schwab
Organization:
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinkler
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Fri Apr 24 15:30:49 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-12-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
Removing the word, "taken" but accepting the remainder of the proposed change will provide
more clarity for this requirement.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
7 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 8-NFPA 24-2020 [ New Section after 5.9.2.4.1 ]
5.9.2.4.2*
Nonthreaded fire department connection couplings shall be equipped with an integral straining
screen.
A.5.9.2.4.2
Fire department connections are susceptible to debris being disposed of within the connection.
Integral screens, as part of the listed device, are a key component to ensuring the integrity of the
orifice of fire department connections.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
The TC resolved PI 45 by indicating that "Obstruction issues are not limited to 3" and above but also 2.5". While
the submitted disagrees with the Technical Committee that the hazard is the same for a 2.5" opening as those for
LDC openings, the submitter has revised the concept provided in PI 45 with this PC to meet the Technical
Committee's wish that a 2.5" connection also be covered under this concept.
Related Item
• PI 45
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Anthony Apfelbeck
Organization:
Altamonte Springs Building and Fire Safety Department
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Tue Apr 28 16:05:10 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected
Resolution:
Internal screens that are part of the fire department connection (FDC) should be a part of the
product listing. Where debris in FDC’s are problematic, the local AHJ can prescribe the use of
locking caps (ie: Knox brand).
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
8 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 9-NFPA 24-2020 [ New Section after 5.9.2.4.1 ]
5.9.2.4.2*
Nonthreaded fire department connection couplings, which are greater than 3", shall be equipped
with an integral straining screen.
A.5.9.2.4.2*
Fire department connections, which are greater than 3", are particularly susceptible to debris being
disposed of within the connection. Integral screens, as part of the listed device, are a key
component to ensuring the integrity of the large orifice fire department connections.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
The submitter disagrees with the TC's resolve to PI 45 that the hazard of obstruction issues is the same for 2.5"
connections that is it for 3". 4" and 5" connections.The larger the opening, the more attractive the nuisance to a
potential vandal and the greater potential for a quantity of debris to be disposed of in the pipe. Although the
submitter disagrees with the TC's resolve justification that the hazard is similar to 2.5", a companion PC has been
submitted to address the TC's concern with the original PI if the TC still feels that the hazard is the same for 2.5" as
it is for 3", 4" and 5". See PC 8.
Related Item
• PC 8 • PI 45
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Anthony Apfelbeck
Organization:
Altamonte Springs Building and Fire Safety Department
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Tue Apr 28 16:13:05 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected
Resolution:
Internal screens that are part of the fire department connection (FDC) should be a part of the
product listing. Where debris in FDC’s are problematic, the local AHJ can prescribe the use of
locking caps (ie: Knox brand). All FDC’s are susceptible to having debris deposited in them,
regardless of type or size.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
9 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 14-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 6.2.9 ]
6.2.9
All connec ons to private fire service mains for fire protec on systems shall be arranged in accordance with one of
the following so that they can be isolated:
(1) * A post indicator valve installed not less than 40 ft 40
( 12 m 12 m ) from the building
(a) For buildings less than 40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) in height, a post indicator valve shall be permi ed to be
installed closer than 40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) but at least as far from the building as the height of the wall facing
the post indicator valve.
(b) Post indica ng valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when a property line or other
physical barriers make it impossible to have post indica ng valve 40’ away.
(c) Post indica ng valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when building driveway or fire
access roadways or other building traffic make it imprac cal to be 40’.
(2) A wall post indicator valve , either a non-rising stem gate valve with a wall post indicator or a listed bu erfly
valve with an indica ng handle extending out through the building wall.
(3) An indica ng valve in a pit, installed in accordance with
*
Section Sec on 6.4
A (4) For buildings with a single system a backflow preventer with at least one indica ng valve not less than
40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) from the building
(a) For buildings less than 40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) in height, a backflow preventer with at least one
indica ng valve shall be permi ed to be installed closer than 40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) but at least as far
from the building as the height of the wall facing the backflow preventer.
(b) Post indica ng valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when a property line or other
physical barriers make it impossible to have post indica ng valve 40’ away.
(c) Post indica ng valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when building driveway or fire
access roadways or other building traffic make it imprac cal to be 40’.
(5) * A nonindica ng valve, such as an underground non-rising stem gate valve with an approved roadway
box, complete with T-wrench, located not less than 40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) from the building .
(a) For buildings less than 40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) in height, a nonindica ng valve, such as an
underground non-rising stem gate valve with an approved roadway box, complete with T-wrench, shall be
permi ed to be installed closer than 40 ft 40 ( 12 m 12 m ) but at least as far from the building as
the height of the wall facing the non-indica ng valve.
Control (b) A nonindica ng valve, such as an underground non-rising stem gate valve with an approved
roadway box complete with T-wrench shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when a property
line or other physical barriers make it impossible to have the valve 40’ away.
(6) Indica ng control valves installed in a fire-rated room accessible from the exterior
Control (7) Indica ng control valves in a fire-rated stair enclosure accessible from the exterior as
permi ed by the AHJ
(8) Any other valve type or loca on as permi ed by the AHJ.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
10 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Additional Proposed Changes
File Name
New_language_for_section_6.2.9.docx
Description Approved
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This section causes a lot of questions. The only option to install a control valve within 40 ft of a building is when the
building is less then 40 ft high or an indicating valve in a pit (subsection 3). There are buildings where the shutoff is
a road box and it is not possible to be 40 ft away.
I have also uploaded this langauge to this PC to ensure languge is correct
Related Item
• PI-47
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Roland Asp
Organization:
National Fire Sprinkler Association
Affiliation:
NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Wed May 06 13:23:55 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-3-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
The change revises the long standing 40 ft rule that is not possible to achieve in many cases and
provides guidance for acceptable alternate arrangements.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
New language for section 6.2.9
6.2.9 All connections to private fire service mains for fire protection systems shall be arranged in
accordance with one of the following so that they can be isolated:
(1)* A post indicator valve installed not less than 40 ft (12 m) from the building
(a) For buildings less than 40 ft (12 m) in height, a post indicator valve shall be permitted to be installed
closer than 40 ft (12 m) but at least as far from the building as the height of the wall facing the post
indicator valve.
(b) Post indicating valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when a property line or
other physical barriers make it impossible to have post indicating valve 40’ away.
(c) Post indicating valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when building driveway or
fire access roadways or other building traffic make it impractical to be 40’.
(2) A wall post indicator valve, either a non-rising stem gate valve with a wall post indicator or a listed
butterfly valve with an indicating handle extending out through the building wall.
(3) An indicating valve in a pit, installed in accordance with Section 6.4
(4) For buildings with a single system a backflow preventer with at least one indicating valve not less
than 40 ft (12 m) from the building
(a)For buildings less than 40 ft (12 m) in height, a backflow preventer with at least one indicating valve
shall be permitted to be installed closer than 40 ft (12 m) but at least as far from the building as the
height of the wall facing the backflow preventer.
(b) Post indicating valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when a property line or
other physical barriers make it impossible to have post indicating valve 40’ away.
(c) Post indicating valves shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when building driveway or
fire access roadways or other building traffic make it impractical to be 40’.
(5)*A nonindicating valve, such as an underground non-rising stem gate valve with an approved
roadway box, complete with T-wrench, located not less than 40 ft (12 m) from the building.
(a)For buildings less than 40 ft (12 m) in height, a nonindicating valve, such as an underground non-rising
stem gate valve with an approved roadway box, complete with T-wrench, shall be permitted to be
installed closer than 40 ft (12 m) but at least as far from the building as the height of the wall facing the
non-indicating valve.
(b) A nonindicating valve, such as an underground non-rising stem gate valve with an approved roadway
box complete with T-wrench shall be allowed to be closer than 40’ to the building when a property line
or other physical barriers make it impossible to have the valve 40’ away.
(6) Indicating control valves installed in a fire-rated room accessible from the exterior
(7) Indicating control valves in a fire-rated stair enclosure accessible from the exterior as permitted by
the AHJ
(8) Any other valve type or location as permitted by the AHJ.
National Fire Protection Association Report
11 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 15-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 6.6.1 ]
6.6.1*
Sectional valves shall be provided on loop systems at locations within piping sections such that the number
of fire protection connections between sectional valves does not exceed six.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
Based upon PI -53 which was resolved without an appropriate committee statement. This concept has merit and
the original substantiation for PI-53 still applies.
This section should apply to loop systems not all systems. On a dead end system, this section only provides a
benefit if the section that needs repair is the last 6 fire protection connections.
Related Item
• PI-53 • FR-13
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Roland Asp
Organization:
National Fire Sprinkler Association
Affiliation:
NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Wed May 06 13:39:35 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-4-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
Providing sectional control valves on looped systems supplying multiple systems allows repairs to
be made without impairing the entire facility or building. Requiring sectional control valves where
other piping arrangements are planned only provides isolation for repairs but does not allow
adjacent systems to remain in service.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
12 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 5-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 6.6.1 ]
6.6.1*
Sectional valves shall be provided on looped systems at locations within piping sections such that the
number of fire protection connections between sectional valves does not exceed six.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This was submitted at first draft and I thought was accepted. This requirement should only apply to looped
systems.
Related Item
• FR#13
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Peter Schwab
Organization:
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinkler
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Fri Apr 24 15:37:35 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-4-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
Providing sectional control valves on looped systems supplying multiple systems allows repairs to
be made without impairing the entire facility or building. Requiring sectional control valves where
other piping arrangements are planned only provides isolation for repairs but does not allow
adjacent systems to remain in service.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
13 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 10-NFPA 24-2020 [ New Section after 7.1.3 ]
7.1.4 Hydrants shall be painted in accordance with the requirements of the authority having
jurisdiction.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
The TC resolved this item by saying that "This is redundant language since an AHJ may already require hydrant to
be painted a certain color." The submitter fails to see where the redundancy is in this standard. The submitter was
unable to locate another section in NFPA 24 that gives the AHJ this authority. If the TC is saying the language may
be redundant to a potential local provision, that could be said about any code provision NFPA writes in any code or
standard. That is not solid justification for a rejection of the original PI. Even if the language is redundant to a local
AHJ provision, the language in 24 creates an expectation that the hydrant should be painted as part of the NFPA
24 installation. That is a reasonable expectation and responsibility that should occur at the time of the installation.
Related Item
• PI 1
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Anthony Apfelbeck
Organization:
Altamonte Springs Building and Fire Safety Department
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Tue Apr 28 16:25:18 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-9-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
Revising section 7.1.1.3 to add paint color requirements to the requirements, subject to AHJ
approval, meets the submitter’s intent without adding a new section to the standard.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
14 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 12-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 7.3.6 ]
7.3.6
The following shall not be installed between a fire hydrant and the control valve for that hydrant:
(1) Check valves
(2) Detector check valves
(3) Backflow prevention valves
(4) Other similar appurtenances
Additional Proposed Changes
File Name
24_CCN_1.pdf
Description Approved
24_CCN_1
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 1 in the First Draft Report on First Revision No. 18.
The Correlating Committee recommends the committee clarify the statement to answer why the action was taken
and not use the submitter's reasoning for submitting the PI. The statement should be written in the voice of the
committee.
Related Item
• FR-18
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: CC on AUT-AAC
Organization:
NFPA
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Mon May 04 15:41:23 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected
Resolution:
The original term, “service stub” is not common to Water Works standards and is not a defined
term within NFPA 24.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
5 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Correlating Committee Note No. 1-NFPA 24-2019 [ Section No. 7.3.6 ]
Submitter Information Verification
Committee:
AUT-AAC
Submittal Date: Mon Dec 16 13:48:49 EST 2019
Committee Statement
Committee
Statement:
The Correlating Committee recommends the committee clarify the statement to answer why the
action was taken and not use the submitter's reasoning for submitting the PI. The statement
should be written in the voice of the committee.
First Revision No. 18-NFPA 24-2019 [Section No. 7.3.6]
Ballot Results
This item has passed ballot
22 Eligible Voters
3 Not Returned
19 Affirmative All
0 Affirmative with Comments
0 Negative with Comments
0 Abstention
Not Returned
Bellamy, Tracey D.
Hilton, Luke
Su, Joseph
Affirmative All
Bell, Kerry M.
Browning, Chase A.
Dellasanta, Steven W.
Friedman, Michael J.
Hoffman, Alex
Hopkins, Mark
Javeri, Sultan M.
Ketner, Charles W.
Koffel, William E.
Lake, James D.
LeBlanc, John A.
Linder, Kenneth W.
Lowrey, David O.
Medovich, Jack A.
Palenske, Garner A.
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
6 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Phillips, Lawrence Richard
Pirro, Donato A.
Seghi, Adam
Thompson, J. Michael
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
15 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 24-2020 [ New Section after 10.10.2.1.4.1 ]
FLUSHING OF UNDERGROUND MAINS SUPPLYING FIRE PUMP(S)
10.10.2.1.4*
The minimum rate of flow shall be in accordance with Table 10.10.2.1.4. for underground piping supplying one or
more fire pumps directly, or at the hydraulically calculated water demand rate of the system, whichever is greater.
Table 10.10.2.1.4 Minimum Flow Rates for Flushing Underground Piping supplying Fire Pump(s)
Nominal Pipe Size
Flow rate
Nominal Pipe Size
Flow Rate
.
.
.
.
(in.)
(gpm)
(mm)
(L/min)
2
150
50
570
2 ∕
230
65
870
3
330
75
1,250
3 ∕
450
85
1,710
4
590
100
2,240
5
920
125
3,490
6
1,360
150
5,150
8
2,350
200
8,900
10
3,670
250
13,900
12
5,290
300
20,100
14
7,200
350
27,300
16
9,400
400
35,600
10.10.2.1.4.1
Where the maximum flow available from the water supply cannot provide the flow rate provided in Table 10.10.2.1.4,
the flushing flow rate shall be equal to or greater than 150 percent of rated flow of the connected fire pump.
10.10.2.1.4.2
Where the maximum flow available from the water supply cannot provide a flow of 150 percent of the rated flow of
the pump, the flushing flow rate shall be the greater of 100 percent of rated flow of the connected fire pump or the
maximum flow demand of the fire protection system.
10.10.2.1.4.3
A reduced flushing flow capacity in accordance with 10.10.2.1.4.2 shall constitute an acceptable test, provided that the
flow rate is as much as can be safely achieved and it exceeds the fire protection system design flow rate.
Type your content here ...
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
Aligning the flushing requirements of N.F.P.A. 24 with those of N.F.P.A. 20 in regards to underground mains
supplying one or more fire pumps directly. This new requirement will limit the introduction foreign matter into fire
pumps during operation or testing from the underground mains. Avoiding potential damage to fire pumps and
impairing the fire protection system they supply.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
16 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Related Item
• First Revision No. 30-NFPA 24-2019
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full
Name:
Marinus Both
Organization:
Api Group Inc.
Affiliation:
Proposal submitted on behalf of the Technical Committee on Fire
Pumps (N.F.P.A. 20)
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Tue Mar 31 11:21:04 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected but see related SR
Resolution:
SR-6-NFPA 24-2020
Statement:
A pointer referring users to NFPA 20 where fire pumps are installed is a better option than adding
a new section with flow values differing from existing requirements of NFPA 24.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
17 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 13-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. 10.10.2.5.1 ]
10.10.2.5.1
The backflow prevention assembly shall be forward flow tested.
Additional Proposed Changes
File Name
24_CCN_5.pdf
Description Approved
24_CCN_5
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 5 in the First Draft Report on First Revision No. 35.
The Correlating Committee recommends the committee clarify the statement by deleting the second sentence, as
there was no additional language provided.
Related Item
• FR-35
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: CC on AUT-AAC
Organization:
NFPA
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Mon May 04 15:45:21 EDT 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee
Action:
Rejected
Resolution:
The Correlating Committee is correct the second sentence should have been deleted as there
was no additional text.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
7 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Correlating Committee Note No. 5-NFPA 24-2019 [ Section No. 10.10.2.5.1 ]
Submitter Information Verification
Committee:
AUT-AAC
Submittal Date: Wed Dec 18 11:34:10 EST 2019
Committee Statement
Committee
Statement:
The Correlating Committee recommends the committee clarify the statement by deleting the
second sentence, as there was no additional language provided.
First Revision No. 35-NFPA 24-2019 [Section No. 10.10.2.5.1]
Ballot Results
This item has passed ballot
22 Eligible Voters
3 Not Returned
19 Affirmative All
0 Affirmative with Comments
0 Negative with Comments
0 Abstention
Not Returned
Bellamy, Tracey D.
Hilton, Luke
Su, Joseph
Affirmative All
Bell, Kerry M.
Browning, Chase A.
Dellasanta, Steven W.
Friedman, Michael J.
Hoffman, Alex
Hopkins, Mark
Javeri, Sultan M.
Ketner, Charles W.
Koffel, William E.
Lake, James D.
LeBlanc, John A.
Linder, Kenneth W.
Lowrey, David O.
Medovich, Jack A.
Palenske, Garner A.
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
8 of 8
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Phillips, Lawrence Richard
Pirro, Donato A.
Seghi, Adam
Thompson, J. Michael
5/4/2020, 3:28 PM
National Fire Protection Association Report
18 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 24-2020 [ Section No. A.10.6.1 ]
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
19 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
A.10.6.1
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
20 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
The use of concrete thrust blocks is one method of restraint, provided that stable soil conditions prevail and
space requirements permit placement. Successful blocking is dependent on factors such as location,
availability and placement of concrete, and possibility of disturbance by future excavations.
Resistance is provided by transferring the thrust force to the soil through the larger bearing area of the
block so that the resultant pressure against the soil does not exceed the horizontal bearing strength of the
soil. The design of thrust blocks consists of determining the appropriate bearing area of the block for a
particular set of conditions. The parameters involved in the design include pipe size, design pressure, angle
of the bend (or configuration of the fitting involved), and the horizontal bearing strength of the soil.
Table A.10.6.1(a) gives the nominal thrust at fittings for various sizes of ductile iron and PVC piping. Figure
A.10.6.1(a) shows an example of how thrust forces act on a piping bend.
Table A.10.6.1(a) Thrust at Fittings at 100 psi 225 psi (6 15 .9 5 bar) Water Pressure for Ductile Iron and
PVC Pipe {{NOTE: ALL Values in the Table will need to be revised test pressure of 225 psi}}
Nominal
Pipe
Diameter
in. (mm)
Total Pounds (Newtons)
90 Degree
45 Degree
N
lbf
N
lbf
Dead End
lbf
N
22 1 ⁄ 2
Degree
11 1 ⁄ 4
Degree
51⁄
Degree
lbf
N
lbf
N
lbf
4 (100)
1,810
8,051
2,559
11,383
1,385
6,161
706
3,140
355
1,579
162
6 (150)
3,739
16,632
5,288
23,522
2,862
12,731
1,459
6,490
733
3,261
334
8 (200)
6,433
28,615
9,097
40,465
4,923
21,899
2,510
11,165
1,261
5,609
575
10 (250)
9,677
43,045
13,685
60,874
7,406
32,944
3,776
16,796
1,897
8,438
865
12 300)
13,685
60,874
19,353
86,086
10,474
46,591
5,340
23,753
2,683
11,935
1,224
14 (350)
18,385
81,781
26,001
115,658
14,072
62,595
7,174
31,912
3,604
16,031
1,644
16 (400)
23,779 105,774 33,628
149,585
18,199
80,953
9,278
41,271
4,661
20,733
2,126
18 (450)
29,865 132,846 42,235
187,871
22,858 101,677 11,653 51,835
5,855
26,044
2,670 11,877
20 (500)
36,644 163,001 51,822
230,516
28,046 124,755 14,298 63,601
7,183
31,952
3,277 14,577
24 (600)
52,279 232,548 73,934
328,875
40,013 177,987 20,398 90,735 10,249 45,590
4,675 20,795
30 (750)
80,425 357,748 113,738 505,932
61,554 273,806 31,380 139,585 15,766 70,131
7,191 31,987
36 (900) 115,209 512,475 162,931 724,753
88,177 392,231 44,952 199,956 22,585 100,463 10,302 45,826
42
(1,050)
155,528 691,823 219,950 978,386 119,036 529,498 60,684 269,936 30,489 135,622 13,907 61,861
48
(1,200)
202,683 901,579 286,637 1,275,024 155,127 690,039 79,083 351,779 39,733 176,741 18,124 80,620
Notes:
(1) For SI units, 1 lb = 0.454 kg; 1 in. = 25 mm.
(2) To determine thrust at pressure other than 100 psi 225 psi (6 15 .9 5 bar), multiply the thrust obtained
in the table by the ratio of the pressure to 100 psi 225 psi (6 15 .9 5 bar). For example, the thrust on a
12 in. (305 mm), 90-degree bend at 125 psi 200 psi (13. 8 .6 bar) is 19 XX ,353 XXX × 125 200 /100 225
= 24 XX ,191 lb XXX lb (10 XX ,973 kg XXX kg ). {{NOTE: Correct the formula based on updated Tabular
values}}
Figure A.10.6.1(a) Thrust Forces Acting on Bend.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
21 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
Thrust blocks are generally categorized into two groups — bearing and gravity blocks. Figure A.10.6.1(b)
depicts a typical bearing thrust block on a horizontal bend.
Figure A.10.6.1(b) Bearing Thrust Block.
The following are general criteria for bearing block design:
(1) The bearing surface should, where possible, be placed against undisturbed soil.
(2) Where it is not possible to place the bearing surface against undisturbed soil, the fill between the
bearing surface and undisturbed soil should be compacted to at least 90 percent Standard Proctor
density.
(3) Block height (h) should be equal to or less than one-half the total depth to the bottom of the block (Ht)
but not less than the pipe diameter (D).
(4) Block height (h) should be chosen so that the calculated block width (b) varies between one and two
times the height.
(5) Gravity thrust blocks can be used to resist thrust at vertical down bends. In a gravity thrust block, the
weight of the block is the force providing equilibrium with the thrust force. The design problem is then
to calculate the required volume of the thrust block of a known density. The vertical component of the
thrust force in Figure A.10.6.1(c) is balanced by the weight of the block. For required horizontal bearing
block areas, see Table A.10.6.1(b).
The required block area (Ab) is as follows:
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
22 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
[A.10.6.1a]
where:
Ab = required block area (ft2)
h = block height (ft)
b = calculated block width (ft)
T = thrust force (lbf)
Sf = safety factor (usually 1.5)
Sb = bearing strength (lb/ft2)
Then, for a horizontal bend, the following formula is used:
[A.10.6.1b]
where:
b = calculated block width (ft)
Sf = safety factor (usually 1.5 for thrust block design)
P = water pressure (lb/in.2)
A = cross-sectional area of pipe based on outside diameter
h = block height (ft)
Sb = horizontal bearing strength of soil (lb/ft2)(in.2)
A similar approach can be used to design bearing blocks to resist the thrust forces at locations such as tees
and dead ends. Typical values for conservative horizontal bearing strengths of various soil types are listed
in Table A.10.6.1(c).
Figure A.10.6.1(c) Gravity Thrust Block.
Table A.10.6.1(b) Required Horizontal Bearing Block Area at 225 psi (15.5 bar) {{NOTE: Update Tabular
values based on a test pressure of 225 psi}}
Nominal Pipe Diameter
Bearing Block Area
Nominal Pipe Diameter
Bearing Block Area
Nominal Pipe Diameter
Bearing Block Area
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
23 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
in.
mm
ft 2
m2)
in.
mm
ft 2
m2
in.
mm
ft 2
3
m2
80
2.6
0.24
29.0
2.7
12
300
24
600
110.9
4
10.3
100
3.8
0.35
39.0
3.6
14
350
30
750
170.6
6
15.8
150
7.9
0.73
50.4
4.7
16
400
36
900
244.4
8
22.7
200
13.6
1.3
63.3
5.9
18
450
42
1050
329.9
10
30.6
250
20.5
77.7
430.0
2
20
500
7.2
48
1200
39.9
Notes:
(1) Although the bearing strength values in this table have been used successfully in the design of thrust
blocks and are considered to be conservative, their accuracy is totally dependent on accurate soil
identification and evaluation. The ultimate responsibility for selecting the proper bearing strength of a
particular soil type must rest with the design engineer.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
24 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
(2) Values listed are based on a 90-degree horizontal bend, an internal pressure of 100 psi 225 psi
(6 15 .9 5 bar), a soil horizontal bearing strength of 1000 lb/ft 2 (4880 kg/m2), a safety factor of 1.5, and
ductile iron pipe outside diameters.
(a) For other horizontal bends, multiply by the following coefficients: for 45 degrees, 0.541; for 221⁄2
degrees, 0.276; for 111⁄4 degrees, 0.139.
(b) For other internal pressures, multiply by ratio to 100 psi 225 psi (6 15 .9 5 bar).
(c) For other soil horizontal bearing strengths, divide by ratio to 1000 lb/ft2 (4880 kg/m2).
(d) For other safety factors, multiply by ratio to 1.5.
Example: Using Table A.10.6.1(b), find the horizontal bearing block area for a 6 in. (150 mm) diameter, 45degree bend with an internal pressure of 150 psi 200 psi (10 13 .3 8 bar). The soil bearing strength is
3000 lb/ft2 (14850 kg/m2), and the safety factor is 1.5.
From Table A.10.6.1(b), the required bearing block area for a 6 in. (150 mm) diameter, 90-degree bend with
an internal pressure of 100 psi 225 psi (6 15 .9 5 bar) and a soil horizontal bearing strength of 1000 psi
(70 bar) is 7 X .9 ft X ft 2 (0.73 m XX m 2). {{NOTE: Adjust based on corrected Tabulated values.}}
For example:
[A.10.6.1c] {{NOTE: Correct formu
In lieu of the values for soil bearing strength shown in Table A.10.6.1(c), a designer might choose to use
calculated Rankine passive pressure (Pp) or other determination of soil bearing strength based on actual
soil properties.
Table A.10.6.1(c) Horizontal Bearing Strengths
Soil
Muck
Bearing Strength ( S b )
lb/ft 2
kN/m 2
0
0
Soft clay
1000
48
Silt
1500
72
Sandy silt
3000
145
Sand
4000
190
Sand clay
6000
285
Hard clay
9000
430
Note: Although the bearing strength values in this table have been used successfully in the design of thrust
blocks and are considered to be conservative, their accuracy is totally dependent on accurate soil
identification and evaluation. The ultimate responsibility for selecting the proper bearing strength of a
particular soil type must rest with the design engineer.
It can be easily shown that Ty = PA sin θ. The required volume of the block is as follows:
[A.10.6.1d]
where:
Vg = block volume (ft3)
Sf = safety factor
P = water pressure (psi)
A = cross-sectional area of pipe interior
Wm = density of block material (lb/ft3)
In a case such as the one shown, the horizontal component of thrust force is calculated as follows:
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report
25 of 25
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...
[A.10.6.1e]
where:
Tx = horizontal component of thrust force
P = water pressure (psi)
A = cross-sectional area of pipe interior
The horizontal component of thrust force must be resisted by the bearing of the right side of the block
against the soil. Analysis of this aspect follows the same principles as the previous section on bearing
blocks.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
The current criteria in the Annex is based on a water pressure of 100 psi with examples of how to adjust the values
based on differing water pressures. Since the design of a thrust block most be capable of managing the internal
water pressure under all conditions, the appropriate pressure for such design would always be the hydrostatic test
pressure since it is 200 psi or 50 psi in excess of the maximum working pressure whichever is greater. To design a
thrust block and not anticipate the forces applied during the hydrostatic test would be a mistake. Similar to what is
done with steel straps for restraint the design should be based on this maximum pressure of 225 psi with
adjustments being appropriate where that is down to 200 psi or upwards of 225 psi where the working pressure
exceeds 175 psi.
Related Item
•X
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tracey Bellamy
Organization:
Telgian Corporation
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Wed Mar 04 16:18:32 EST 2020
Committee:
AUT-PRI
Committee Statement
Committee Action: Rejected but held
Resolution:
The technical committee needs more time to review and discuss the submitter's data.
8/12/2020, 7:24 AM